1 


i- 




Author 


w 


^■<*0i> 




H 


'^^^\ 




H 


.^m.- 


Title 


1 


- 




.fise. 


Imprint 


fpB- 


...v 




1 


n 





16--47;j72-8 Gf^': 



hi 



i«i > >* « iit> t t> if ii li t t t t iiti i i ttafc^^A^AA < t < 1 H I ^A^tAAAAAAAAAAAA " ...... 



^ 



S< 




THE NATIONAL CRISIS. 



A. LETTER 



HON. MILTON S. LATHAM, 



t-KXATOR FROM CALIFORNIA, IX WASIUNOTOX, 



By ANGLO-CALIFORNIAN 



FROM THE SAN FBANCISCO BULLETIN. Feb. 4tli. 1861. 



SAN FRANCISCO: 

TOWNE Sr BACON, PRINTtRS, EXCELSIOR OFFICE 

Ko. 603 Clay Street, corner of Sansome. 




^'wi^^^^^^rr m »ii>»»>>>>>>i 



n M I I M M > > f y * 



THE MTIOML CRISIS. 



To the Hon. Ifiiton /SI Latham, /Senator for California — 
WasJiington : 

Dear Sir : — Sometimes an interested spectator sees more of a bat- 
tle than the actual combatants. In the struggle which threatens to 
sever a powerful and hitherto compact confederacy of Sovereign States 
on this continent, an observer may perceive elements for hope in the 
future, even should the political difference of the present culminate in 
disunion. 

I. 

Some years ago, while attempting a criticism of De Toqueville's 
Democracy in America, I was necessarily led to the investigation of 
tlie political economy of the United States, and arrived at conclusions 
which seemed to have escaped that distinguished writer. It appeared 
to me that certain elements existed in the confederacy, which sooner or 
later would produce disunion. It is threatened earlier than I supposed 
it would take place, and the movement to effect it comes from a quar- 
ter opposite to that which (looking at the matter from a fbreignex-'s 
point of view) I thought the movement would first spring. I antici- 
pated that on the occurrence of a rupture of the American Confeder- 
acy, the demand for disunion would come from the North, and not from 
the South. 

At the same time it did not seem, after placing the subject in every 
light which occui'red to me, that even disunion, if it could be accom- 



pllshed without civil war, would work matorial injury to either division, 
as to their external interest; while it oftered to both a prospect of 
greatly increased internal cohesion and solidification, within themselves. 

In times of national upheaval, calm words, (the mere expression of 
reason) from their very dispassionateness, sound tamely ; yet, if ever 
in the history of a people there are times when its leaders should rise 
above contending factions and seek the higher ranges of thought, where, 
freed from the fogs of the strife below, they can take broad and clear 
views, and can look back over the great plains of history, crowded with 
the panorama of human life for centuries, whence come the voices of 
experience, telling how nations have done in the past, from which is 
gained the knowledge of what nations should do in the future, it is 
when popular excitement runs wildly amongst the masses of men 
around them, with whom any frenzy is contagious, cumulative by repe- 
tition, and destructive of the ordinary common sense of the national 
mind. 

Though not technically a citizen, yet having lived for more than half 
a generation in the Union, with all my interests bound up in the wel- 
fare and progress of its people, I trust an expression of my views, so 
far as they may recall the analogies of history, and show a correct ap- 
preciation of the current course of events, will not be taken amiss. 

11. 

In physical science, whenever the movements, combinations or forces 
of matter present the same uniform phenomena, those uniform condi- 
tions are termed, laws ; they are the conditions of its existence, the 
courses appointed by the great Creator, in which it obediently runs. 
The recollection of these laws is of primary importance to investiga- 
tions in natural philosophy. 

In political science, it is equally useful to remember what unvarying 
phenomena attend the progress of human events, and are the charac- 
teristics of men associated as nations. It is from history — taking the 
term in its broadest sense — we ascertain what these are. Though in- 
capable of definition, with the precision of physical laws, and con- 
stantly changing with the advancing intelligence of men, yet, from them 
certain axiomatic truths are derivable, which can be accepted as guides 
by the student of political economy. As applicable to the present sub- 
ject, I think the following propositions will be considered as unquestion- 
able truths : 

That a successful nationality must be composed of homogeneous 



materials — of men of tlie same ethnological* type, inhabitating a coun- 
try the physical conditions of which, as to soil and climate, do not 
greatly vary. 

That the sentiment known as patriotism, love of country or loyalty 
— which is the cement of nationality — exists in nations in the inverse 
ratio to their geographical extent, and cosmopolitan character of their 
people, being the strongest in countries limited in size, and inhabited 
by men greatly resembling each other, and differing from the people of 
other nations. 

That the average intellectual culti%'ation of a people determines the 
form of Government best suited to them ; the higher the standard, the 
more popular may be the Government. As their average intelligence 
descends in grade, concentration of power in fewer hands, is necessary 
for the national progress and well-being.f 

That national distinctions between men who spring from the same 
general race, are wholly educational. These ditferences, which, when 
brought into active force, create national animosities and wars, arise 
entirely from differing modes of training, association of ideas, habits of 
thought and habits of action, which in fact comprise education ; and 
which again are, to a great extent, molded upon the physical conditions 
of the countries which nations respectively occupy. 

That MASS and class governments are natural antagonisms. Democ- 
racy (demos, the people, kratein, to govern — the government of the 
masses) and Aristocracy (aristos, the bravest or noblest — aristohratia, 
the rule of the chief people) represent practically, irreconcileable prin- 
ciples in the administration of national affairs; which antagonisms have 
always been the most demonstrative in republics. 

That into a Democracy a race of men inferior to the masses, cannot 
be admitted without a violation of its first principles. As the Govern- 
ment rests in the whole people, so the whole must be eligible to govern. 
No class (in numbers) may be introduced which, from the natural inca- 
pacity of its members, or from ethnological antipathies, is unfitted to 



* I use eM)io as meaniug the varieties of the humau race, and the word race, where it 
occurs, as meaning an admitted and acknowledged type of variety. 

t By average intelligence, I mean the knowledge spread throughout tlie masses of the 
people — that aggregate of knowledge which swells to a great amount Irom the numbers 
of people who know, rather than the elevation of knowledge which is enjoyed by a few. 
A community composed of Lord Urougham, Edward Everett, Charles Anthon, and ten 
thousand Hottentots, would be one in which the average intelligence would be exceed- 
ingly low, although within it almost all human knowledge might be comprised. Whereas, 
ten thousand New Euglaud mechanics, educated in the public schools, would present a 
community of a very high average, though perhaps not one of them might possess more 
than a rudimentary knowledge of modern science. 



rule, or whose rule would be revolting to the prejudices of the body of 
the people. 

That the extreme types of men ■will not amalgamate, or, if forced so 
to do, the tendency of the offspring (which is to degenerate and become 
extinct) proves that a natural law has been violated. 

I think that these propositions are self-evident. 

III. 

The inauguration of the American Commonwealth was apth' termed 
" the great experiment." With the single exception of a few Swiss 
cantons, the world had not seen a democratic republic, until the New 
England States had achieved their independence, and abolished slavery. 
There had not previously existed an example of a nation, in which the 
governing power rested in, and emanated from, the whole people equal- 
ly, by admitted constitutional right. There has scarcely been an histori- 
cal period without its republic, from the Israelites under their Judges, 
from the classic clusters which crowded ancient Greece and rendered 
illustrious that age and people, from Eepublican Rome, through Venice, 
Genoa, Switzerland, Holland and the American Union, down to the 
burlesque nationalities of Central America ; but nowhere can the stu- 
dent of history, up to this day, place his finger upon a simple demo- 
cratic republic, until the Northern Commonwealths of the United States 
were formed, except the Swiss cantons just alluded to; and, even now, 
many of those cantons are so strongly tempered with the ancient aris- 
tocratic element, as to be more in form than in spirit, pure democracies. 

What, then, are the Southern Republics of America ? Are they not 
democratic ? Ilistoiy does not disclose any communities less so. In 
whatever country are found two classes of men — the one superior iu 
power and privileges, the other without political power and unprivi- 
leged, but nevertheless forming a large proportion of the mass of the 
population — there is presented the phenomenon of an aristocratic and 
I)iebeian class, in the plainest acceptation of the terms. It is immate- 
rial how these different classes originated ; whether the dominant class 
biicame so from ancient use, and hereditary, slowly growing and con- 
tinually conceded encroachments ; or by force of arms and conquest ; 
or by superior intelligence, subjecting the masses physically, through 
partial laws, or spiritually, by impressing and enthralling their imagin- 
tion ; or from posiliv(.'ly superior natures operating upon natures more 
feebly constituted. The result is the same, and develops the fact of an 
aristocratic and exclusive class, distinguished from, and holding in subju- 
gation the commonality or the plebeian class. 



Neither the coloi' nor race of the superior, nor of the inferior class, 
nor the disparity between the two in their respective communities — 
the comparative elevation of the one, or the degradation of the otlier — 
affect this general definition. The lower, may possess a natural and 
political capacity for acquiring wealth and influence, and thus risino' 
into and forming a part of the governing class, as in most of the 
monarchies of modern Europe ; they may be held as serfs of the 
monarch or of the soil, as in Russia, or in an impassable religious 
conventional degradation, as in India ; or they may exist, as in ancient 
Home at the close of her republican era, in a bondage merely physi- 
cal, but without any ban, social or religious, inevitably forbidding 
their rise ; or in a slavery combining social inferiority as impassable 
as that of the sudra of Ilindostan, with a jjhysical bondage as com- 
plete as that of the Roman slave, as in the case of the colored 
population of the Southern States of America — the differences are 
unimportant to the definition now stated. The subordinate order 
held in subjection ; the dominant order, their superiors, exempt from, 
and yet subsisting upon, their labors directly or indirectly, make the 
fact. Those, are the aristocratic or patrician grade ; these, the demo- 
cratic or plebeian, within their respective communities. It is the exist- 
ence of a privileged and dominant class in any country, whether civil- 
ized or barbarian, in the presence of a numerically large but inferior 
class, which is destitute of political power and personal equality, which 
constitutes an aristocracy. 

The peculiar characteristics of an aristocratic class are essentially 
the same in all countries, and have existed, with but little change, in 
every historical age. In fact, they are the natural habitudes of our com- 
mon humanity thus placed, and cannot be otherwise. These charac- 
teristics are subject to modification from external infiuences — by 
religious teaching, by extending knowledge, by the spreading glory 
of that universal light known as civilization. These temper the 
effect and assuage the harshness, but leave the essence of patrician 
attributes unchanged. In all aristocracies we find in its members the 
claim, as of right, to dominance and power ; the assumption of superi- 
ority ; a demand for exemption from physical labor ; an idea that labor 
is a badge of servility and, therefore, of dishonor ; a desire for wealth 
as a necessity of superiority, coupled with a repugnance to obey the 
universal law under which wealth is created — by labor ; a high sense 
of [personal importance, and an intense solicitude that it should be 
acknowledged ; an instant perception of personal insult, and a deter- 
mined spirit of vengeance ; a contempt for life, not of other men alone 



but of their own, upon any conditions except those which maintain 
their superiority and compel its recognition. (Hence the institution of 
'• chivah-y," and its spawn, the duello.) When they are compelled to 
gain a subsistence, they naturally turn to those avocations which com- 
mon consent considers not derogatory to the chief people — such as 
places of honor and trust under the Government, occupations con- 
nected with the proprietorship of land, or employments possessing 
judicial or guiding functions, as those of judges, divines, lawyers or 
physicians. This instinct is developed in all aristocracies, whether in 
civilized or savage communities. Around these material characteristics 
are hung the graceful courtesies, and generally the polite accomplish- 
ments of their time and country ; a gallant bearing to equals ; munifi- 
cence to rising inferiors ; a splendid hospitality to the sti-anger and the 
guest ; and a strange deafness and blindness, to the rights of the masses 
of men below them. To this class doubtless belong virtues and vices, 
which they share in common with the classes below them. I merely 
enumerate the peculiarities of the order, necessarily growing up with 
its members from their position, and resulting from their education. 

A democracy, on the other hand, is an association of all the people, 
upon a common level of rights and privileges. If there be a specially 
endowed, a specially exempt, or an exclusively governing class, there 
is no democracy. The first object of a democratic aggregation is to 
dispense with class government, and to retain in the hands of the whole 
people its entire sovei'eignty. Its direct consequence is to distinguish 
with honor, the station and occupation of its greatest numbers — the 
workers and their work ; which is the extreme opposite of the intent 
and effect of an aristocracy. The masses of men labor everywhere. 
The sovereign power must be dignified, and those in whom it resides 
sliare its dignity. The laborer and his labor are inseparable ; there- 
fore must labor be ennobled. One of the missions of modern democ- 
racy, is, to emblazon upon the front of its nationality, that labor is hon- 
orable in itself as well as the source of power — as that nationality 
swells in grandeur, to compel the deference of mankind to these novel 
tenets, and teach the world to recognize the doctrine scorned in aristo- 
cratic communities, that physical exertion lays at the foundation of 
empire ; that laborers who rear its fabric may of right occupy its high 
places ; that they are at once their own commonalty, and aristocracy — 
peers of their realm, and of each other — subjects to their Constitution, 
but sovereigns in themselves. 

There are three test points of a true democracy : — equality of political 
station amongst the people, (if not present, yet attainable, as in the case 



of the younj;, or aliens, by time, or by compliance with regulative con 
ditions) ; the elevation of physical labor to an equal power with intel- 
lectual labor; and the privilege of free utterance upon all political, 
moral, and social matters. So unerringly do these characteristics indi- 
cate a simple democracy, that it is not too much to say, they cannot 
exist except in one ; nor is any community democratic, to which they 
will not athrmatively apply- 
None of these characteristics applies to the southern republics of the 
United States. In them, there cannot be equality of political station 
amongst the people ; labor is not held in honor, but in contempt ; and 
free utterance would be madness. No test of simple democracy finds 
a response within them. They are complete aristocracies, and find 
prototype and narallel, more or less, in every aristocratic republic 
which has yet existed. Between ancient Attica, as daguerreotyped in 
history, and South Carolina, for instance, there is a singular similarity. 
In both, the governing classes form but a small proportion of the whole 
population ; in both are those classes polished, eloquent, petulant, more 
magnificent in conception than in execution,* and fond of chaijge ; in 
both are found an inferior free class, and a slave class of immensely 
preponderating numbers. In both is there the same impatience of dis- 
agreeable truth. For impolitic truth-telling, the Athenians ostracised 
the Aiuiopagite Aristides; and South Carolina bludgeoned Senator 
Sumner. In both, the barbarous acts were exulted in at the time, and 
regretted afterwards. The Athenian Republic was beyond doubt 
purely aristocratic, and may be accepted as the prototype of all repub- 
lics down to 1776, with, as already explained, the Swiss exception. 

Let any thoughtful man apply a democratic test to South Carolina — 
that, for instance, of freedom of speech. In simple democracies, where 
there is nothing to be hid, men are educated to speak the thoughts of 
their hearts — to reason aloud. Where this is permitted, freedom is 
guaranteed ; for wrongs, however existing, find voices which human 
nature, perpetually appealed to, cannot resist. Such is the freedom of 
the Northern States, but such cannot be the freedom of the South. So 
lone: as millions of strong men are held, docile in a bondage with which 



* Exceedinjily characteristic is the following from the Charleston Mercury, tlie morning 
alter the Star of the West had been flrcd into— the first blow in the contest. "Were the 
occasion adequate, the janguage would be Demosthenic— " "We would not exchange or 
recall that blow tor nSlionsl It has wiped out a hall century ot scorn and outrage. 
Again South Carolina may be proud of her historic lame and ancestry, without a blush 
upon her cheek lor her own present honor. The haughty echo of her cannon has ere 
this reverberated from Maine to Texas, through every humlet of the Xorth and down 
along the great waters of the Southwest." 



8 



llipir ignorance of any other condition makes them content, free dij^cus- 
sion upon almost any political subject would be dangerous. like 
illuminating a powder magazine with open torches, it would almost 
invite an explosion, which friend and foe must equally deprecate. 
[It is surely evident that the Creator did not intend man, even of the 
lowest type, to be made a chattel, or he would not have endowed him 
with the capacity to understand the language of other men, and to 
reason upon what he hears. Before one's hoi'se, or dog, or steam-engine, 
one is under no restraint ; but he that owns a reasoning slave, must 
surrender a portion of his own liberty to secure tlie servitude of his 
chattel — his liberty of speech.] Happy are the people whose social 
superstructure is incombustible — who may carry the bright and even 
fiery light of free discussion, from its foundation to its dome! 

But were the South to abolish slavery to-morrow, were the negroes 
to be free — nay, to go a step further, suppose they were all to be edu- 
cated — could the Southern Republics be democracies, with such an im- 
mense proportion of a different and inferior type of men among them ? 
I think not. Ethnological repulsions, the unconquerable antipathy of 
race, would prevent the negro's admittance to equality with the white 
man, in political power and privilege. It seems impossible, in the 
nature of things, that " the Ethiop can so change his skin " as to be 
eligible to govei'n the State. Until the negro race becomes an incon- 
siderable fragment of the whole population, (so as to become merely an 
exception to the rule) in any Southern State, its republicanism must be 
aristocratic. 

Europeans regard these antipathies as prejudices merely, and possi- 
bly they are riglit ; but in national affairs what are prejudices ? They 
are substantialities, often of the most indestructible character. They 
are absolute tangibilities, as much so as the laws, the religion or the lan- 
guage of a people. More tenacious than these, they are often found 
lingering amongst men, whose very nationality has been obliterated by 
conquest, whose religion has changed, whose language has been lost — 
])ut whose prejudices defy extinction and flourish in fragments with the 
historical memories of their fallen country. That the prejudices of 
the white man, are set against the equality of the negro, is, in the white 
man's country, a sufficient reason for placing him in an inferior political 
condition. 

IV. 

Tlicre has been a constant contention in all ages between the aristo- 
cratic and the democratic elements of society — the former seeking to 
maintain llieir power, the latter to abridge it, and sink its possessors to 



a common level. This contention has always been the most vigorous 
in republics. Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, were the battle-fields of this 
struggle, during a great part of their existence. In Rome, the patrician 
overrode the plebeian, and when the commoners gained the ascendency 
carried the republic into imperialism. " Tliey would never submit !" 
In Florence, Genoa and Venice, democracy only reared its head to be 
strangled. In France, the contest culminated in national madness, and 
had to be restrained by despotism. In England, since the time of the 
Cavaliers and Roundheads, the democratic current, like a full though 
quiet stream, has been gradually washing away the aristocratic embank- 
ments, reared by the higher classes. 

There is nothing more marked in history, than the conflict of these 
elements. We may ask, xohy on this continent, and in this age, the 
antagonism should cease f Why the Northern republics — the most 
ultra of democracies ; should harmonize with the Southern republics — 
the most intense of aristocracies ? It is a striking proof of the wisdom 
of the founders of the American confederation, that the discordant ele- 
ments have combined for three-quarters of a century. It is true that 
they only come into actual contact at the federal center, where it may 
be supposed that the wisest and coolest men of both sections meet. But 
this contact, slight as it is, and carefully guarded, is enough to produce 
continual effervescence, and convert the common Senate chambers of 
the Union, into mere arenas for the strife of incompatible principles. 
The southerner comes to Washington, full of the hauteur and idea of 
domination, which have been educated in him, by the contact of slavery, 
and which he feels ought to be recognized. He meets the Northerner, 
who has been taught to deny superiority to any man, unless for actual 
personal achievement and self-built eminence — to whom the natural 
pretensions of the South are akin to insolence — who refuses to concede 
honor, to the wearers of knightly spurs, except they have won them, 
and who look upon their purchase, or inheritance, almost with contempt. 
It is impossible for men thus differing, to unite usefully in a common 
object, when that object continually evokes their antagonistic peculiari- 
ties. 

I cannot avoid the conclusion that this discordance is the cause of 
the threatened severance of the Union, and not the existence of slavery 
in the Southern States. Slavery is the remote, the educational, but 
not the immediate cause. Its abolition in the South, (unless accompa- 
nied by the removal of the inferior race, and the re-education of the 



10 



white population in the democratic principles of equality,) would not 
reconcile the contestants. 

The dullest observer may see, that the dissimilarities of the extremes 
of North and South are yearly increasing. At the time of the union, 
they were less violent than at present. The education of the junior 
generations in the east is tending to augment the diversity. National 
distinctions while wholly educational, are cumulative up to a certain 
point. Take an example in France and England. The people are of 
one common type. They have had distinct and various interests, and 
a separate existence. Different modes of thought, habits of life, and 
habits of action, have from age to age impressed the people of each 
nation, until, like two branches from a common root, they have grown 
up in divergent directions, and in those directions have each become 
confirmed and massive trunks. The youth of each, educated separately, 
prolong the diversity from generation to generation. To bind those 
nations into a unity of political opinion and purpose, involves the long 
process of uneducating and re-educating the people. Although they 
may unite occasionally as nations, in cases where they have a common 
purpose to accomplish, yet the condition of their friendship is to keep 
(nationally) as separate, as possible. 

Between Massachusetts and South Carolina, taking them as types 
of the different nationalities of North and South, there is a striking 
dissimilarity. There is more affinity, more points of mutual attraction, 
between New Englanders and the middle classes of Great Britain, than 
between the former and the Carolinians. In fact, except as to certain 
notions as to the form of government, the first two are the same. Not 
only in race, language, and religion, have they a common identity, but 
in both is there the same love of freedom and of absolutely free ex- 
pression ; the same indomitable and active personal industry, and love 
of useful enterprise ; the same instinct of thrift, and acquisitiveness ; 
the same spirit of enquiry, and investigation. They cherish the same 
home comforts, and revere the same domestic virtues ; they mutually 
dislike the gorgeous, but inutile spirit of chivalry ; under a plodding 
exterior life, both carry a dormant enthusiasm, which, when evoked, 
renders them capable of sublime self-abnegation. Docile in peace, 
invincible in wai", their masses are the happiest examples, and their 
leaders the foremost apostles, of human progress. Yet notwithstanding 
this almost perfect homogeneousness, the seventy-five years of separate 
national education wdiich have intervened, would render a union of 
these peoples now unnatural and unsuccessful. Distinct nationalities 
must he tlie condition of their friendship. 



11 



As illustrative of the correctness of the opinion, that the differences 
between North and South do not immediately spring from the exist- 
ence of slavery, the citizens of California have had a practical example. 
There have been here men from the North and the South, but no 
slavery. The Northerners, following their educational instincts, com- 
menced to work out their fortunes by developing the resources of the 
country — exploring, buildiijig, trading, mining, farming, and pursuing 
the mechanic arts. The Southerners, taking their natural bent, sought 
the same end in governing, advising and directing the rest. They 
have been our legislators, statesmen, lawyers and government ofiicials, 
— but scarcely in any case, mechanics, traders, miners or farmers. Be- 
tween the two classes, there have been continual, though not demon- 
strative, antipathies. In the political field, our cavaliers met their 
Eoundhead, in the person of the Cromwell of California — D. C. Brod- 
erick — whose energetic labors to overthrow their power, are well 
remembered. He lost his life, it is true, by submitting in a moment 
of weakness to a cavalier ordeal — that of skill with the pistol — but, 
like his prototype, for the time being he accomplished his purpose. 
To a bystander, the essential, undisguised differences between the men 
of the North and the South, have been as patent as the distinctions 
between English and French. The Southerner in California, when 
not in a political majority — when not of the ruling power — floats as a 
sort of uncombined element in the social mass ; his heart is with his 
native State, his feelings follow the bent of his early training, and he 
takes pride in exhibiting his distinctions in the face of the majority by 
which he is overborne. " He will never submit!" — it is not natural 
to him. We have had the principles of the American struggle epito- 
mized and dramatized, in California, and yet there has been no slavery. 

The fact, that the pretext for the severance of North and South lies 
in a dispute as to the destinies of the common property — the Territo- 
ries — does not alter, the idea now expressed. The North conceives 
that slavery is incompatible with democratic institutions, and that on 
the same soil, they cannot successfully coexist. The people of the North 
design to make these Territories, the homes of white working men. 
The existence of slavery in the presence of free laboring men, is an 
insult to their daily life, as it degrades physical toil, by making it the 
special avocation of slaves, and creates in the mind and habits of the 
slaveholder, as an inevitable consequence, a sense and display of 
superiority over those who labor ; which is felt by free working men 
educated in democracies, to be intolerable. If the Territories were 



12 



tropical swamps, unfit for white men to work in, the North probably 
would care nothing for their destiny. But the admission of the aris- 
tocracy-fostering institution, into a country fitted by nature to be a home 
for democracy, is equivalent to surrendering it entirely. The old an- 
tagonism of democracy forbids such a concession to the aristocratic 
section, even where, as in this case, the lalter are entitled, in justice, 
to at least a share of the common estate. Sometimes democracies 
" will never submit." 

The quarrel of the American crisis has been happily and tersely 
epigrammized by Senator Benjamin of Louisiana, in his celebrated ex- 
clamation — " The South will never submit !" The Presidential contest 
of 1856 gave warning of the growing power of the North. In the 
election of Lincoln in 1860, it was discovered that the power had 
grown in full strength. History taught the South, that the nature of 
that power was, to continue growing. For more than half a century 
the aristocratic element of the South, always cohesive around the cen- 
ter of its specialty, and politically adroit by long training, had ruled 
the Union. The North, though huge in numbers, trained in democratic 
principles, submitted, as it had been taught, to the will of the majority 
throughout those years. But the first time the aristocracies of the 
South are outvoted, and find themselves powerless, they will withdraw. 
** The South will never submit ! " Aristocracy never did willingly. It 
must rule, or retire. Of what use to it are masses of men, if they 
cannot be controlled ? 

V. 

It is everywhere admitted that the same kind of government which 
Fcrves the purposes of the Northern republic, will not do for the South. 
For the North, the means of conducting foreign relations, of suppress- 
ing crime, and adjusting disputes between its citizens by law, is all the 
government that is needed. If the people so lack intelligence as to 
require more ruling than this, tliey are unripe for democratic institu- 
tions. The Soathern republics have had a legacy bequeathed to them 
in slavery, which has created governmental necessities entirely differ- 
ent, and of infinite difficulty. There, a host of a strange race has to 
be kept in bondage, and made profitable. A popular government is 
impossible; a class rule, imperative. The larger the slave population 
becomes, the more infallibly will the government be concentrated — the 
stronger, and more despotic is it required. An aristocracy has an ele- 
tront of strength which democracy does not possess — except, perhaps, 



13 



during the continuance of a foreign war. It stands continually armed, 
as in tlie presence of a common enemy. It lias a common purpose to 
accomplish, which is to keep the inferior class under its feet. From 
this cause, aristocratic governments have always exhibited that distinct 
and direct self-energy, which springs from unity of purpose. If the 
Southern republics are to retain slavery, and continue to prosper, the 
circle of the governing classes, instead of expanding, will contract- 
Athens, under her Archons, furnishes a splendid example of an aristo- 
cratic republic, maintaining itself for many centuries, keeping the while 
in suhjpctiou a slave population, variously estimated at from five to 
twenty times the number of the privileged classes, and, notwithstand- 
ing the excitable and unstable character of her people, progressing to a 
wonderful pitch of power and prosperity. Its government was a con- 
centrated oligarchy. 

The Southern republics of America, are much more dangerously 
placed than were the republics of Greece, and need governments at 
least equally despotic. They are surrounded by lively, talkative, some- 
what intermeddling democracies as neighbors, whose great bobby is 
freedom — freedom of speech, of action, of person, and of electoral 
choice — freedom to go everywhere, see everything, and do everything; 
who are blessed with a fatal intuition for finding out weak spots, hitting 
sore places, and treading on carefully covered corns, and whose passion 
is to alter everything, in search of improvement. 

One can easly imagine how a haughty people, holding an immense 
servile population in bondage, by a tenure which the present humor of 
civilization repudiates, should live in continual terror cf these uncere- 
monious freemen, and should desire to get away from them as far and 
as fast as possible. 

Unquestionably, the people of the South know what is best for them- 
selves. How can Northern men judge for them? Their dwellings are 
not built upon the volcanic foundation, of millions of men held in unwill- 
ing servitude. Their goods and chattels cannot reason, or take mur- 
derous impulses. They are not haunted by the skeletons, which hang 
in the closets of the South — they do not hear that shaking of gaunt 
bones, telling fearfully of danger, which carries dismay to the Southern 
heart. They have not had a giant nursed for them, and bequeathed to 
them, which they must control or permit it to strangle them. If the 
Southerner, replete as he is with intelligence, decides upon a political 
course for himself, the Northerner may accept it as proven, that that 
course, is the wisest and best for him. It is asking too much of human 



14 



nature — especially of aristocratic human nature — to require it to forego 
what it deems most to its own advantage, out of consideration for the 
gojd of the democratic masses, by which it has been outvoted. 

VI. 

What is Secession, so-termed ? It is the act of a nation changing 
its form of government. In separating from the American Uniou, the 
people of South Carolina adopt a new form of government, and elect 
new rulers to administer their national affairs. They refuse to be ruled 
by the North, through the federal power; they exercise their right and 
privilege of rejecting a form under which they will not live, and choosing 
a system which they prefer. 

The right of nations to choose, or change, their own form of government, 
and their own rulers, has become a fundamental — nay, more, the funda- 
mental law of civilized nationalities. In ancient history, we find a 
reiteration of this right, running for centuries amongst the freest and 
most enlightened nations, whose records have been preserved. It does 
not seem to have been disputed. Rome, for instance, commenced as a 
rude monarchy. Its government in seven hundred years changed its 
form to aristocratic republicanism, concentrated that again under Dic- 
tators, Decemviri and Consuls. Sometimes the Tribunes of the People 
ruled; sometimes, Aristocratic triumvirates. Finally, she returned to 
imperialism, under her four centuries of emperors. I cannot remember 
a single expression in the records of Latin history and literature, which 
even questions the right of the Roman people to make those changes. 
They are repeatedly deplored, but it did not seem to enter into the 
mind of the historians and writers of that period, to question the right 
of the people to make, or consent to them. 

During the dreary centuries which succeeded the dismemberment of 
that power — in the " dark ages" — sundry preposterous herecies to com- 
mon sense sprang into life; and, amongst them, the degma of the 
" divine right of kings" to rule independent of a people's choice. This 
absurdity, which was nurtured into strength by the side of its twiu 
dogma iu ecclesiastical affairs — the " apostolic succession"— (as though 
piety were hereditary, and the sublimities of Christianity could only be 
perpetuated by human rotation in office, as if the standard-bearers of 
the Cross should necessarily be the most successful intriguers of an in- 
triguing priesthood) — smothered for centuries, and smothers in some 
countries to this day, the fundamental law, which ordains that a nation 
Khali of right choose its own rulers. This law, which had fallen into 



15 



desuetude, was reasserted by the League of tlie Grisons in the four- 
teenth contury, and reinstated as a European element on the lield of 
Sempach, upon the dead body of Leopold of Austria. The glorious 
republic of Switzerland has nursed it into modern strength. 

Holland, in 1575, asserted this right under "William the Silent, and 
after a long struggle shook off the yoke of Spain, and the fetters of the 
Liquisition. For two centuries the sturdy Dutchmen maintained the 
principle — sometimes with Stadtholders, sometimes without; at one 
time, under a Grand Pensionary; and latterly under a monarchy. 
England asserted it, in lG53,,under Cromwell, and, in 1688, under 
William of Orange. Poland perished in a similar endeavor. Sweden 
asserted it, in 1521, under Gustavus Vasa; and, in 1810, in the choice 
of Bernadotte. The United States established it on this continent, in 
17*16. France followed, in 1790, and continually since. Chile adopted 
it, in 1819; Mexico, in 1821, under Iturbide; Peru, in 1823; Belgium 
(a forcible example, and notable precedent in the present crisis,) in 
1830; and the list fof which these are only the chief instances) closes 
with the recent action of the Duchies of Northern Italy, and Naples, 
in the Garibaldian war. 

In these instances, (with the exception of Poland, whose fate is the 
commiseration of free men the world over,) this great right was not 
only asserted, but was in every case admitted, sooner or later, by co- 
temporaneous powers. Louis Napoleon, " by the grace of God and the 
will of the French people, Emperor, &c ," is its modern champion; £nd 
its last exponent is the Cabinet of Great Britain. The ink is scarcely 
dry in Lord John Kussell's celebrated despatch to the British Minister 
at Turin, in which this fundamental law is distinctly recognized and 
applied. It has become, and is, the fundamental law of civilized 
nationalities. 

Is it reserved for America — for her Northern commonwealths, whose 
adherence to this doctrine, has been sealed by the blood of their found- 
ers, for the freest of all democracies, the very breath of whose nostrils 
is the right of choice — to deny and abrogate this great political law, 
when its exercise is attempted by their brethren of the Southern repub- 
lics? By many, the right of Secession is denied; its attempt is de- 
nounced as treason, to be puuished and resisted by force — by fraticidal 
war. It is asserted that the Southern republics shall not do, in 1861, 
as the Northern commonwealths themselves did, in 1776; and as the 
most enlightened of modern nations have done, for the last Gve centu- 
ries. Shall this noble Right which has been nursed by patriots of all 



16 



lands, aud handed down from sire to son as the foremost legacy of 
freedom, the adoption and recognition of which is the brightest trait 
of modern civilization — shtill this right, here, in the home and heritage 
of freemen, be struck down and annihilated, by men whose fathers died 
in planting it, and who have hitherto protected and cherished it ? 

Are South Carolina, or Georgia, or Louisiana, nations or not ? If 
they are, are Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania despots, that 
they should act towards them as Austria would to Venetia, or Hungary, 
or Russia to Poland, and compel them, at the point of the bayonet, to 
forego their right of choice — force them to retain a form of govern- 
ment, which they refuse to live under? It weakens the argument to 
add, that the same right of choice which was exercised by the South- 
ern republics in voluntarily joining the Union, may logically be reex- 
ercised in withdraw^ing from it. It is enough that a nation's 

CHOICE IS NATIONALLY EXPRESSED FOR OTHER NATIONS TO AC- 
QUIESCE. 

It is trifling, to assert as analogical, that if South Carolina may with- 
draw from the Union, a county may segregate itself from a State, or 
a town declare its independence of a county. In the one case, 
it is a sovereignty which chooses — a national entirety, the right of 
which to choose, is an international axiom ; in the other, it would be a 
mere fragment of a nation, splitting itself from the main trunk. 

It will be said that although the right of nations to choose their own 
form of government, is admitted by all civilized people, (except those 
governed by despotisms) yet the recognition of this right is withheld, 
until the party choosing, has made good his selection by force. I admit 
that this is the European addendum to the law. It is tantamount to 
giving a privilege only, to those who are strong enough to take it with- 
out permission. It is conceding justice to those only, who have the 
most guns, and can take the best aim — who can convince their oppo- 
nents, not by reason, but by slaughter. Such an illogical condition has 
clung to the skirts of this national right, since it emerged from the 
ignorance of the mediasval era. It is a part of the filth of that de- 
graded period, which has not been brushed off by modern intelligence 
— a remnant, a specimen, of the boasted brute chivalry which insti- 
tuted the wager of battle, and the ordeal of torture, as tests of truth and 
iiuiocence. "Why, in the name of common sense, must the choice of 
freedom be baptised in blood ? Why must its exercise be the signal of 
civil war; a cause for desolated homes, for human passions inflamed 
with hatred, to thirst for murder? These horrors are not the less ter- 



17 



rible because they are done in the name of patriotism by both combat- 
ants ; because both simultaneously burn with fury and love of country ; 
because each glories in the other's destruction, and in the exaltation 
of their common land. The processes of the Inquisition were not the 
less dismal to the sufferers, because they were conducted for the salva- 
tion of their souls ; the motives which prompted the inquisitors then, do 
not now, hallow their acts or justify their cruelties. The time has gone 
forever when men may be torn to pieces because of their religious 
choice ; and it is time that a political choice, should cease to be the 
cause of letting loose on peaceful communities the havoc of domestic 
warfare. 

It is true that there are examples of nations, which appear to think, 
that civil war is necessary to give dignity to every difference of politi- 
cal party opinion. In Mexico, a little war, some wholesale robberies, 
and a limited license to soldiery, lust and love of rapine, appear to be 
a la mode at each change of national officers. Unless the commercial 
and industrious classes, are mulcted somewhat of their earnings ; unless 
a few hundred haciendas are harried and burnt ; a thousand or so of 
fathers, husbands, or brothers, left to gnash their teeth over daughters, 
wives, or sisters, brutally violated ; unless the domestic economy of the 
peaceful classes is reasonably outraged, and at least a respectable num- 
ber of good citizens, are hanged or cut down on suspicion of disaffec- 
tion to the dominant power — • unless such things happen, the ambi- 
tious and pretentious miserables, who might eventually become Pres- 
ident and Cabinet of that extensive confederacy, would feel deprived 
of a portion of their inaugural ceremonies. Nicaragua, Costa Rica, 
New Granada, Chile and Peru, all follow the chivalric notion that 
bloodshed is necessary to an effective political choice ; and acting 
accordingly, they indulge in a constant succession of small wars, burn- 
ings, confiscations, reprisals, executions, common soldiery outrages, and 
gasconading pronunciamientos. 

If I could conceive it possible tliat the Northern democracies of 
America would emulate the example of those semi-barbarous republics 
in this crisis, I should lose faith in humanity and feel as if long-cher- 
ished and honored friends, had suddenly become vicious imbeciles. 

VII. 

Union is not always strength. Detonating powder united with 
cement, will not add to the cohesive strength of a wall. Heterogeneous 
materials rear a weak fabric — built with such components, the higher 
3 



IS 



it rises, the weaker it becomes. It is thus with nations — especially with 
republics, and most especially with democracies. The last entirely lack 
the " personal interest bond ; " that active principle akin to selfishness, 
Avhich in monarchies and oligarchies converts the proprietary preten- 
sions of the royal family, or of the aristocracy, into rivets of the com- 
monwealth. 

It is obvious that the wider a democracy spreads, the more it multi- 
plies elements of internal discord within itself; and the freer it is, the 
more that discord finds expression. A wide empire requires very few 
sovereigns ; a central despotism is a necessity of its existence. It is 
about the same distance from Maine to Texas that it is from the Baltic 
to Gibraltar. Nearly the same number of people inhabit the former 
tract of country now, as in the fourteenth^century populated the latter. 
If in that century the League of the Grisons, from which sprang the 
Swiss republic, had established a number of democracies over that 
extent of Europe ; had bound Germany, Italy, Holland, Burgundy, 
France, Spain and Portugal into one vast confederation — could it have 
existed to this day ? Is it supposable that so infinite a diversity of 
interests — which, if not existent, would surely have grown with time — 
could have been bound in one immense union of disunity ? But Switz- 
erland alone, has lived through the intervening centuries, and kept her 
proud position amongst nations, her democratic freedom and her in- 
ternal happiness. Pier people are like each other ; they have compar- 
atively few conflicts of interest, and their country is limited in extent. 
Even with these advantages, she has had several narrow escapes from 
revolution, arising out of dissensions between her Cantons. 

If it be fated that the American Union dissolve into two confedera- 
cies, it is consolatory to think, that each will be sufficiently strong to 
protect itself from external enemies ; internal peace in each may be 
the more confidently looked for, because the antagonistic elements at 
present compelled to meet, will no longer be brought into conflict. The 
evil of actual severance is, in a great msasure, ideal. That which is 
to be dreaded is, the hatred which the conflict commonly attending 
national ruptures engenders. No man is at this day bold enough to 
say, that the severance of the American colonies and the mother coun- 
try was an evil, except for the insane warfare which it caused. Both 
countries have been, for seventy years, benefitted by that disunion ; 
but tlic blood of kindred, inflamed by the conflict, has scarcely yet been 
cooled into mutual forgiveness. 

To whom woTild disunion bring injury ? Each section stoutly denies 



19 



that IT will, or can, be injured ; but, in some unexplained way, it is as- 
serted that the whole are to be damaged, without a hair of either being 
hurt. Oh, it is urged, disunion will lower America in the eyes of 
Europe ! Does America care — is either North or South, dependent 
on European opinion ? Say, rather, that the peackful separation of 
thirty millions of people — sections of whom have diverse interests — 
into two confederacies, without bloodshed or violence, would be a spec- 
tacle of such surpassing grandeur — so contrary to all that men have 
heretofore witnessed — that Europe would be compelled to revere those 
principles, which, permeating the masses, can hold in check the passions 
of multitudes, and permit the sway of reason in a vast population. 
Great families break up in the order of Providence. England — though 
in relation to her colonial dependencies, a government concentrated 
almost to despotism — must, in time, cease to be the head of a world- 
wide empire. She expects to take lier place as a mother of nations, 
and let her children work out their own destinies. Australia, Canada, 
British Columbia, the Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, India, all will, in 
future generations, doubtlsss be independent nationalities, as her Amer- 
ican colonies have become. 

The great precedent which is wanted in the history of the world, is 
a peaceful division of a powerful empire. The United States have as- 
tonished the world by their progress ; if they now divide, let them bless 
it, by establishing this noblest of national examples. To this end, 
thoughtful men hope, that everything like huckstering and driving bar- 
gains, will be avoided in the division of the national domain. A few 
forts, a stretch of unpeopled territory, a few millions more or less of 
the national debt, are bubbles when compared with the peace of thirty 
millions of people. A three months' derangement of commerce would 
quadruple in loss, the entire value of such matters of dispute. 

To avoid the perpetual raking up of the old irritation, it is to be hoped 
that the North will lay down the doctrine of England, as to escaping 
slaves. Let there be no extradition laws for fugitives from labor. The 
Southerner will then look upon fugitives as dead, and submit to their 
loss as he does when he buries them. 

VIII. 

It is vain to speculate upon the ultimate destiny of the Slave States. Were 
the race hold in bondage of the same human type, we could anticipate an ulti- 
mate blending, and an elevation of the whole. But here are millions of black 
men amongst millions of white ; and of the two, the lower are the more vigor- 
ous and re-productive. History luruishcs uo precedent uf races so intimately 



20 



mixed, yet so widely diflering. The very antipodes of humanity occupy a com- 
mon soil ; between them fusion appears impossible. E(|ually impossible does it 
seem that, in this reading, printing and thinking age, the inferior race can for a 
great length of time be held in bondage. The growing lights and potential 
voices of civilization, w^ill edge by degrees into the midst of the colored race. 
Even if tliey could be kept in bondage by force, the time will surely come to 
the dominant order in the South, as it has come to their brethren of England 
and the North, when from their own consciences will spring the power which 
will manumit the slave. 

15ut, then, what shall be ? Can the two races exist together, distinct as the 
squares of a chess board, and harmonize? It is hardly conceivable. More 
])r()bable is it, that the black race, obeying their natural instincts, will gradually 
leave the temperate zone, and by degrees crowd down upon the tropics. Already 
the amalgamation of the Caucassian and Indian races in Mexico, Central Amer- 
ica, and tropical South America, is working the extinction of both, and making 
room for a fresh human tide. It scarcely requires the eye of prophecy to see 
in the far future the millions of the American negro, spreading through those 
countries, until they found nationalities of their own, amidst the swamps and 
heats of the tropical zone. Thus, the law of races, violated when the sons of 
Africa were brought to the white man's home, to countries fitted for the white 
man's occupancy, shall, after the lapse of centuries, assert its force ; and the order 
of nature, interrupted by the rapacity of man, be restored and maintained. 

"^rhrough what national throes and human suffering, this, or what other end, 
shall be brought about, we know not. Our concern is with the present, and 
'• sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." 

IX. 

AYhatever may be the result of the present crisis, the State of California will 
undoubtedly remain with the Union. The advocates of Secession — of an inde- 
jicndent Kepublic, of a Pacific Utopia — are confined to people from the South 
and their immediate friends. Citizens from Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee, 
and numlicrs from Louisiana, in the main prefer the Union ; but the entire mass 
of our Northern and Western citizens, without distinction of political party, 
with a unanimity which delights the lovers of peace, and progress, and dem- 
ocratic government, adhere with their whole hearts to the Union — to the whole 
Union if possible, laut to the Union with the free States under every prospective 
contingency. There may indeed come a time in the remote ftiture, when the 
happy physical conditions of our State shall have produced fixity and density 
of population, when the labors of many generations shall have added greatly to 
the national resources, that California may gracefully cease to lean upon her 
sister States and become self-existing ; but for the present, she is em|:)hatically 
of the North, for fret'doni, democracy and Union.* 



• The division of the American Union, if it take place, will be at the great line which 
div ides North and South. There will be a Union of Democratic Kepublics— without any 



21 



Let us hope that while the South works out the arduous problem of inuin- 
tainiug slavery surrounded by the blaze of freedom, and the North develops tiie 
prof^ress of the "great experiment" of government by the masses, California 
may realize the prediction of one of the most original thinkers of Europe, made 
twenty years ago, while she was yet a miserable province of ]\[exico : " It may 
not be unreasonahlc to expect, when the United States are fully peopled to the 
Pacific, the greatest civilization of that vast Territory will be found in tlie 
Peninsula of California, and the narrow strip of country beyond the Rocky 
Mountains."^ 

I am, dear sir, yours truly, 

ANGLO-CALIFORXIAX. 

San Francisco, February 4, 1861. 



great principles of incompatibility to evoke continual jars within it; and there will be 
a Union of Aristocratic Republics equally homogeneous within its circle. Of course, 
each may expect to have disturbances arising from clashing geographical or sectional 
interests, but they will, within their respective Unions, be tree from the violent and 
eternal antagonisms of Aristocracy and Democracy, ot priviledgism and equality, of 
freedom and slavery. "SVestern Virginia, Kentucky, Eastern Tennessee and Maryland 
will (judging from my observation of them) be perplexed to choose. They will probably 
unite in the first instance with the Southern Union— but in the course of time renounce 
that connection and unite with the North, 
t Tesliges of Creation. Page 227. 



\ 



